I’ve been meaning to write this piece for Slate for a while, but couldn’t get to it because of The Albatross. As it turns out, the piece, about the unconscionable exemptions from prosecution given to religious people when they injure their children by using faith “healing” instead of western medicine, deals with themes in the last chapter of FvF.
This is one of the more palpable dangers of faith, since it’s resulted in the deaths of hundreds (probably thousands) of children—not to mention adults. And, as I’ve said before, it’s not just these benighted parents who are at fault, for the initial laws mandating religious exemptions were set up by the U.S. government in 1974 (it was a condition for states receiving money for child protection), so this is on us. It’s our responsibility to rescind these murderous laws. As CHILD (Children’s Healthcare is a Legal Duty, a wonderful organization that lobbies against religious exemptions from medical care and vaccination) notes:
In response to Christian Science church lobbying, the federal government began requiring states to enact religious exemptions from child abuse and neglect charges in 1974. CHILD founders Rita and Douglas Swan lobbied for several years against this regulation. The federal government rescinded it in 1983.
In 1996, however, Congress enacted a law stating that the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) did not include “a Federal requirement that a parent or guardian provide a child any medical service or treatment against the religious beliefs of the parent or guardian.” 42 USC 5106i Furthermore, Sen. Dan Coats, R-Indiana, and Congressman Bill Goodling, R-Pennsylvania, claimed during floor discussion that parents have a First Amendment right to withhold medical care from children.
The exemptions also hold for vaccinations: 48 of the 50 U.S. states allow parents to let their children go unvaccinated for religious reasons. That’s a danger not just to the children, but to society at large.
Further, judges and juries tend to let off parents lightly because of respect for “faith” (you don’t get this kind of pass if you withhold medical care for nonreligious reasons), so there too more moderate believers are to blame. In FvF I tell the story of Ashley King, the 12-year-old daughter of Christian Scientists in Phoenix (a middle-class family), who died a horrible death from bone cancer because her parents refused to get her treatment. She died in agony after ineffectual prayers. (Had she been taken to a doctor early on, they estimate a 60% chance she could have been cured.) Ashley’s parents were let off with unsupervised probation.
Severe punishment for killing one’s children through faith healing is needed as a deterrent, because parents who get off lightly often allow subsequent children to die untreated. Remember, too, that “alternative medicine”, like homeopathy, is also a form of faith-healing, although (except for indigenous peoples in Canada), that’s doesn’t confer exemptions on parents who use it on their kids.
The rest of the information is in my new piece on Slate, “Faith healing kills children.” I feel strongly about this issue, as these deaths are totally preventable, so please share the information.
Also, don’t forget that although adults are allowed to refuse medical care because they’re presumed to be able to make “mature” decisions, many of these adults were inculcated in the faith when they were young, and so are forced into faith-healing because of early environmental influences.
I’ve looked only briefly at the comments on the Slate piece, but you might be amused or horrified at some people’s attacks on what is a very reasonable point. Some folks apparently want religious parents to be able to substitute prayer for medical care of their sick children. Their arguments are stunningly inane.
Altho I think I’ve posted this here before, and also sent it to the WSJ, who printed it as a letter to the editor a good number of yrs back, this kind of thing strikes a personal-by-extension chord.
My mother (b 1908) was a young teenager in Minnesota when insulin first came on the scene. A neighbor friend, Molly, was diabetic and deteriorating. She started getting injections and began to improve, but then her sanctimonious Xtian “Scientist” parents decided this wasn’t anything God would approve of, and stopped the injections. Predictably, Molly went downhill and died.
Yes, one of my great aunts (also in Minnesota) dies of diabetes complications. I don’t know if she got insulin or not. She was not a “Xian Scientist”, I know that for sure.
Great article! Looking forward to read your latest book.
I’m not sure what you are using the term “western medicine” instead of the more accurate, in my opinion, “evidence-based medicine”.
Again, great article highlighting a very serious issue.
Good point. Referring to “Western medicine” is similar to using the term “allopathic” medicine. Not only does it usually indicate that the speaker is an altie, it attempts to frame health care as a cultural issue, with different but equally valid versions to choose from.
Of course, the Mysterious Orient apparently has less focus on science and reason and more focus on ancient traditions. That’s not at all racist or anything. Because it’s supposed to impress us.
The disturbing thing about this is that one could reasonably argue that these parents love their children as much as any other parent. Which reminds me of a father who placed a boy on an alter and almost shanked him until DOG said, “Stop”. Which reminds me that religion poisons everything .
Does loving their children stop them from being financial ignoramuses? Of course it doesn’t.
Does loving their children stop them from driving too fast, or with over-worn tyres? Of course it doesn’t.
So what possible grounds could there be for thinking that loving their children is going to make them world-class oncologists, immunologists or virologists?
Oh yeah. Goddidit.
The answer to this problem is to rightfully declare the parent who would withhold care for life-threatening but treatable illnesses as delusional and incompetent to decide for the child; assign a court appointed surrogate to ensure the child gets proper medical care as if the parent had a psychiatric disorder that precluded rational decision making. And by all means, prosecute the bejesus out of these wackos who only pray when their child aspirates a hotdog.
That’s what happens in most OECD countries if the authorities find out about the situation. American religiosity makes it an outlier.
I don’t think the issue is as black and white for me as it is for Jerry and some others,* but I agree with your general approach. Withholding standard medical care, known to work, in potentially fatal circumstances is reckless endangerment. Prosecute it as such, and appoint the legal equivalent of a ‘probation officer’ (but more medically focused) over the parents to ensure it doesn’t happen again.
*Reason: just as with things like driving too fast, there are going to be a lot of quantitative factors involved in figuring out what counts as legally criminal reckless endangerment. Risk/likelihood of bad outcome. Expected end state of bad outcome. Person’s knowledge at the time. Etc. Its not always going to be an easily defined, qualitative yes/no evaluation between legally allowed foolish behavior and criminal endangerment. Having said that, determining the line is what courts are for. There is absolutely no reason for any religious exemption. Yes, the difference between ‘merely foolish’ and ‘criminally reckless’ is sometimes hard to figure out and subjective, however it should be – as best we can do it – fairly and equally applied to all guardians, regardless of whether their motivation for acting/not acting was religious or not.
It does get more difficult where the side-effects are significant (as with operations and chemo) and the ‘cure’ is not assured. And costs are not irrelevant. Should one impoverish the family in making Junior sick as a dog with chemo and undergoing painful operations in order to increase his chances of survival by 50%, or just spend the money in taking him to Disneyland and giving him the best possible time in the little he’s got remaining?
It’s not always straightforward.
(I’m deliberately assuming a hard-to-treat cancer here).
Not really disagreeing with eric here.
Well said, Prof. CC!
Children are not, contra the pronouncement of a well-known Rethuglican senator, the property of their parents, they have their own rights. And one of them surely should be the right to proper medical treatment and not faith-healing. The folks at Science-Based Medicine and Respectful Insolence have been outspoken about this for years.
As a Northern Californian, I was twice surprised by the vaccination bill introduced by State Senator Pan – first, that someone would introduce a bill at all; and second, that it would go so far. I hope that we can join Mississippi and West Virginia in protecting our citizens by vaccination. Unfortunately I think that changing the laws on parental neglect is less likely.
This reminds me of a conversation that I recently had with an idiot pro-lifer.
He argued that it was irrelevant if strict anti-abortion laws actively *harmed* women, because pro-lifers ‘truly love babies and just want to save lives’.
Yeah. So, killing your child through faith healing is totes ok gang, because the faith healers just want to save lives!
‘truly love someone else’s foetuses and couldn’t give a stuff about the mother’s life’
There, ftfy.
Wow. Just as you say there are some commenters in there that are pretty much nuts. Just cruising through briefly we have an anti-vaxxer that is convinced that scientists are the Eeevelle Emmpire, to one who uses the fallacy consequences — if you make take away my freedom to with-hold medical care what next will the gov. do?
I liked the comment that harped on the fact that the relative number of children who die from religious exemptions is insignificant compared to the number who die each year of anything, because it elicited this reply:
Meh. I take issue with the people who say these nuts love their children. Parents don’t always love their children (I know this from experience). It was revealed in trials that many of these parents had sought medical care for themselves, and one couple even had prescriptions for pets. It would appear they simply don’t care enough about their children to want the ongoing expense of taking care of their child’s medical needs.
My guess is that some of them love their children, and some of them don’t. But all of them love God best of all — or think they ought to. If their hearts are focused on God, then God will make sure nothing bad ever happens.
Even if it looks bad, it’s not.
Hello Dr. Coyne–just wanted to alert you to a medical error in your article. I’m a neonatologist (specializing in well and sick newborn care). The prophylactic antibiotic in the eyedrops given at birth is erythromycin–an antibacterial that prevents vertical (mother to baby) transmission of gonorrhea and chlamydia. Gonorrhea is the main culprit in causing blindness when untreated. Chlamydia can also cause eye infections and may progress to pneumonia in the first few months of life. These eye drops do not cover for herpes–there is no prophylactic medicine given to infants for herpes.
Prevention of vertical transmission of herpes is directed at maternal suppression in mothers known to have had this infection–they are placed on antiviral medication at 36 weeks gestation as prophylaxis for a recurrence at the time of delivery. If a mother has active genital lesions at the onset of labor, a c-section is done as soon as possible.
All that being said, if a mother gets good prenatal care, testing is routine for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Thus, a mother may have a “valid” reason for withholding drops if she does not have these infections. However, there is always a chance to be infected or reinfected after testing is done (partners going astray…in this business we see it all the time with STDs.)Thus, universal treatment continues–with parental exceptions as you know.
Of greater concern is families who refuse (and are allowed to refuse) the also universal, routine and prophylactic Vitamin K injection at birth. Vitamin K is vital to one of the major clotting pathways in all of us, does not cross the placenta well, and is notoriously low in newborns. These low levels can lead to a well-described condition called Hemorrhagic Disease of the Newborn (HDN). This is a relatively infrequent but deadly condition where the newborn suffers severe intracranial hemorrhage due to impaired clotting, and thus can result in severe brain damage and death. A single shot of 1 mg of vitamin K prevents this condition ENTIRELY. Families have begun to refuse this shot along with eyedrops and hepatitis B vaccine at birth. And….there has been a resurgence of this disease in the US, although it is more under the radar than the vaccination issue. This idiocy is killing and brain damaging babies today. I saw one myself while doing some newborn overseas work in Uganda (no prophylaxis there) –and it is not pretty.It is disgusting to have it occurring in the US.
Love your website, you are one of my two “dailies”, and we share a passion for the health of children. Keep up the good work with your advocacy!
Catherine
Thanks, Cathering.
Question: do the parents who refuse to allow their infant to have the Vitamin K injection tend to cite specific religious objections — or do they seem to be driven by more generalized spiritual beliefs regarding what is “natural?” Or do they just seem to be buying in to anti-establishment conspiracy theories?
Most seem to be driven by the “natural” argument. For example, babies born at home or in birthing centers tend to have lower rates of vitamin K prophylaxis. Some also list the same reasons as for vaccines–preservatives, etc. even though this is not a vaccine.
Although I have a biased view, I always say that it is natural for babies and mothers–(and children) to die all the time. “Died in childbirth” is a phrase from the past for a reason. And the rates of neonatal and infant mortality prior to modern medicine–exponential differences. I was exposed to “natural” childbirth in Uganda and I shudder at the memory; we take so much for granted here. I came to appreciate the miracle of the basic c-section for both mother and baby.
Yes I think this is a point that needs to be mentioned over and over again to the ‘naturopaths:’ natural human birth and growth includes something like 1/3 of us dying before adulthood. We want to avoid that part of natural, not embrace it.
A family member of mine lived in Bolivia for a while. She couldn’t drink the ‘natural’ potable water without getting sick; the natives could. How could they do it, she asked? Because parents ensure a little bit of their water gets splashed into/drunk by their infants. The infant gets a little sick, recovers, and from that point on are immune to whatever microorganisms are in it…except for the very small percent of infants that don’t recover, but die instead.
This was quite common for visitors to Rarotonga in the ’80s (don’t know the situation now). The water there was filtered but untreated, but from intakes in the hills where nobody (literally nobody) lived.
A week or so after arrival you’d develop ‘the trots’, after a few days it would go away and you wouldn’t get it again. Tourists, for whom ‘a few days’ was half their holiday, should stick to bottled water.
(I don’t think any kids ever died from it though, since medical care was available).
Most interesting, Catherine!
I knew Vitamin K was given for clotting problems but had no idea there was such an awful syndrome it prevented.
And I love the reminder that dying in childbirth is natural!
Thanks! I’ll try to get the piece corrected. Much appreciated.
a good short video summary and article
http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/lifestyle/health/2014/08/babies-hemorrhage-after-parents-refuse-vitamin-k-shots.html
Slightly OT.
I strolled into my local Barnes & Noble today to buy PCC’s book. I made a point of asking two employees about it, saying “I’m looking for a just published book. It could be in Religion or in Science.” I described the book’s subject, gave the title, and generally tried to be more enthusiastic than I generally am in retail situations. One of them looked it up and led me to it. I hope they remember it.
I am against this as I am against all forms of child abuse.
Can it really be true that public school teachers can refuse tests for TB?
TB is infectious and nasty.
I had a friend who got it when we were young, he got coughed on working in a repat hospital. (returned soldiers) He was about 20. He had to be isolated for 12 months, taking handfuls, literally, of tablets every day.
We, a large circle of friends, all, everyone he may have had close contact with, had to have sputum tests and some follow up Xrays.
The point is, that it is very serious.